CaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Practice
  • Study
  • Study Guides
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryPracticeStudySettings
Judicial Precedent

Paola v Jeeva NO and Others

CitationCase number 475/2002 (SCA) – official law report citation not provided in the judgment text
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Administrative LawPlanning and Zoning LawLocal Government LawProperty Law

Facts of the Case

The appellant owned property situated above and adjacent to property owned by the J Jeeva Family Trust in Umgeni Heights, Durban. The trust applied to the local council for approval of building plans involving alterations and additions to its property. The approved development would substantially impair the appellant’s panoramic view and significantly diminish the market value of his property. Expert evidence from a valuer and estate agent confirming diminution in value was uncontested. The proposed building also failed to comply with Town Planning Regulations requiring a minimum five‑metre rear space. Additionally, at the time of approval, the local council had not appointed a building control officer as required by the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977.

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was upheld with costs. The decision of the North and South Central Local Council approving the amended building plans was reviewed and set aside. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally.

Legal Significance

The case is significant for affirming that statutory requirements relating to building control officers constitute jurisdictional facts, without which local authorities lack power to approve building plans. It also clarifies that derogation of value under the National Building Regulations includes loss of market value caused by impairment of view, even in the absence of a servitude of prospect. The judgment strengthens protections for neighbouring property owners in planning and building approval processes.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.